What's new

Manager Watch: Ange Postecoglou

jolsnogross

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2005
3,874
5,799
He didn't choose to lose in the cup. He needed to know if he can rely on the squad and give players minutes. As a new manager he has to learn if these players can be trusted. He didn't throw the competition on purpose. I was disappointed we went out, but we went out on the lottery of penalties. We drew the game 1-1. Did much better there than in the league mind you.
Sure. I think we're agreeing to a large extent. You certainly agree he made changes, such that we did not play our first team in that match. By definition, therefore, he has not put all our best resources in to winning that game. That contradicts the notion that you go in to every single game doing everything possible to win it.
 

Styopa

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2014
5,657
15,777
He did choose to make the changes, no?

what ever the reason behind the decision, it’s not to give us the best possible chance of winning that game. Which was the contradiction others were pointing out.

But there’s a difference between that and what has been talked about this week. He took a risk but that’s different from wanting to lose a match.

What sparked this whole debate this week was a large section of fans and/or club staff wanting to lose a match. That debate has been done to death now tbf but I don’t think Ange can be accused of wanting to lose the Fulham match. He can be accused of taking a risk, prioritising the league, not giving us the best possible opportunity to win, and even being too cocky about our chances, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he actually wanted to lose the match.

I still think he got it a bit wrong with that selection but I think he wanted to win.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
17,497
32,355
Imagine how much worse this would’ve been if we were 12th or something in the league and there truly was nothing riding on that game. This is the only thing I’m still confused by, the way he speaks he speaking about us all together and I just fundamentally disagree with that, lines have to be drawn.

In that embargoed conference he’s talking about Celtic and how rangers won it the year before and he’s talking in a way that implies it’s similar situations coz he was saying to everyone there we have to worry about ourselves and that’s how you build a winning mentality (again internally not externally but blurs the lines between the 2 when speaking so it’s confusing) and ignores the fact that he was never in the same situation.

I reckon if you asked all Celtic fans what would you rather beat rangers twice in the league and finish 2nd or lose to them twice and win the league a good section would choose the first option. If you asked spurs the equivalent question the vast majority would pick the league which goes to show just how intense that rivalry is up in Scotland but Ange didn’t change anything about that, like he implied. They still hate each other, there was no change in fans mindset or nothing. He did acknowledge when he said all fans want really is success but he still fails to join that up to this season. We had no trophy on the line, we had a half chance of CL that’s it. He doesn’t get it but he doesn’t have to he just needs to learn how to lie a bit better.

I disagree he’s a great communicator, I’ve been very confused by a lot of what he’s said this week but I don’t care really. I like him, think he’s a good coach and that’s all that matters at the end of the day.
 

easley91

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
19,520
56,015
Sure. I think we're agreeing to a large extent. You certainly agree he made changes, such that we did not play our first team in that match. By definition, therefore, he has not put all our best resources in to winning that game. That contradicts the notion that you go in to every single game doing everything possible to win it.
In your mind and maybe some sure. But not in his and that's the key thing here. If he played the "strongest" team and we lost in the same manner, would he have chosen to lose it or was it just a bad night?

He has reasons for picking players and the bottom line is he still wants them to go out and win the game just as much. Fulham was the first chance for several players to show Ange they can do the job he asked of them.

You're of the belief that he hasn't put all his resources into that game. That's YOUR thought process. If he didn't want to win it he wouldn't have made the changes that saw us get to 1-1 on the night.

It's a squad game and you need to know if they're up to the task. If you don't play them how will you ever know?

He's said his reasons on multiple occasions for doing things and some still refuse to actually acknowledge what he says because it doesn't fit in their own mind.

Ange wants to win but the early part of the season it was about getting minutes and getting them used to the way he wanted things done.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,101
16,466
Sure. I think we're agreeing to a large extent. You certainly agree he made changes, such that we did not play our first team in that match. By definition, therefore, he has not put all our best resources in to winning that game. That contradicts the notion that you go in to every single game doing everything possible to win it.
If he just plays our best eleven in every match how 1) does he get to see the rest of the squad in real matches and 2) how would he ever give the youngsters a chance ?
 

C1w8

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2011
631
1,180
Imagine how much worse this would’ve been if we were 12th or something in the league and there truly was nothing riding on that game. This is the only thing I’m still confused by, the way he speaks he speaking about us all together and I just fundamentally disagree with that, lines have to be drawn.

In that embargoed conference he’s talking about Celtic and how rangers won it the year before and he’s talking in a way that implies it’s similar situations coz he was saying to everyone there we have to worry about ourselves and that’s how you build a winning mentality (again internally not externally but blurs the lines between the 2 when speaking so it’s confusing) and ignores the fact that he was never in the same situation.

I reckon if you asked all Celtic fans what would you rather beat rangers twice in the league and finish 2nd or lose to them twice and win the league a good section would choose the first option. If you asked spurs the equivalent question the vast majority would pick the league which goes to show just how intense that rivalry is up in Scotland but Ange didn’t change anything about that, like he implied. They still hate each other, there was no change in fans mindset or nothing. He did acknowledge when he said all fans want really is success but he still fails to join that up to this season. We had no trophy on the line, we had a half chance of CL that’s it. He doesn’t get it but he doesn’t have to he just needs to learn how to lie a bit better.

I disagree he’s a great communicator, I’ve been very confused by a lot of what he’s said this week but I don’t care really. I like him, think he’s a good coach and that’s all that matters at the end of the day.

Your analagy is more to do with celtic having won the league so many times, and that they know theres every chance they win the league multiple times in the immediate future, than it does to do with their rivalry.

If they hadnt won the league for 60 years, and rarely even get close, their answer would likely be different.

Hes said he doesnt get it but acknolwedged he read the room wrong and fair play for him to do that. Its done now for me, would just like us to put a proper line under this by thrashing Sheff United.
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,752
206,649
Sure. I think we're agreeing to a large extent. You certainly agree he made changes, such that we did not play our first team in that match. By definition, therefore, he has not put all our best resources in to winning that game. That contradicts the notion that you go in to every single game doing everything possible to win it.
I very much disagree. I mean, how would you know? Firstly, what you think is the best possible way of winning a game might not be how he thinks, but most of all, him being in possession of the facts which you aren't privy to, such as who's carrying a knock, who might need a rest and a whole heap of other considerations suggest what you're saying is uninformed so i'm not sure how you can be so definite.
 
Last edited:

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
17,497
32,355
Your analagy is more to do with celtic having won the league so many times, and that they know theres every chance they win the league multiple times in the immediate future, than it does to do with their rivalry.

If they hadnt won the league for 60 years, and rarely even get close, their answer would likely be different.

Hes said he doesnt get it but acknolwedged he read the room wrong and fair play for him to do that. Its done now for me, would just like us to put a proper line under this by thrashing Sheff United.
Yeah that’s a fair point about the titles Celtic have won.
 

Styopa

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2014
5,657
15,777
Imagine how much worse this would’ve been if we were 12th or something in the league and there truly was nothing riding on that game. This is the only thing I’m still confused by, the way he speaks he speaking about us all together and I just fundamentally disagree with that, lines have to be drawn.

In that embargoed conference he’s talking about Celtic and how rangers won it the year before and he’s talking in a way that implies it’s similar situations coz he was saying to everyone there we have to worry about ourselves and that’s how you build a winning mentality (again internally not externally but blurs the lines between the 2 when speaking so it’s confusing) and ignores the fact that he was never in the same situation.

I reckon if you asked all Celtic fans what would you rather beat rangers twice in the league and finish 2nd or lose to them twice and win the league a good section would choose the first option. If you asked spurs the equivalent question the vast majority would pick the league which goes to show just how intense that rivalry is up in Scotland but Ange didn’t change anything about that, like he implied. They still hate each other, there was no change in fans mindset or nothing. He did acknowledge when he said all fans want really is success but he still fails to join that up to this season. We had no trophy on the line, we had a half chance of CL that’s it. He doesn’t get it but he doesn’t have to he just needs to learn how to lie a bit better.

I disagree he’s a great communicator, I’ve been very confused by a lot of what he’s said this week but I don’t care really. I like him, think he’s a good coach and that’s all that matters at the end of the day.

I think it’s tricky to compare our rivalry with Arsenal to Celtic and Rangers’s because Celtic and Rangers rivalry has roots in a political/sectarian rivalry and a war that was raging well into the 1990s. There are also other political and religious components to it.

Whereas the Tottenham/Arsenal rivalry is based mainly on proximity and them moving to our patch. There are other aspects to it but it doesn’t have as many complications to Celtic/Rangers, as I understand it. Not that the rivalry between Tottenham and Arsenal isn’t also very fierce, of course!

As I understand it, the Celtic and Rangers rivalry has generally relaxed over the years. Not necessarily thanks to anything Ange but because of other factors.

I agree though that Ange probably read the room wrong in hindsight because he seems to have lost a bit of good will among supporters. I think also everyone is bit on edge due to the number of games we have lost recently. He’s increased pressure on himself because I think a lot of people will be ready to jump on these comments again if we don’t smash Sheffield United. And it would be a pity to finish the season like that after such a feel good factor at the start of the season.
 
Last edited:

McFlash

Without doubt the dumbest & most clueless member.
Oct 19, 2005
13,276
48,084
If he just plays our best eleven in every match how 1) does he get to see the rest of the squad in real matches and 2) how would he ever give the youngsters a chance ?
Well put, we're all quick to complain if a manager doesn't rotate, or doesn't give fringe players and youngsters a chance to show what they can do.
Yet basically, to back up a point, this poster is saying that he should play his best 11 all the time? Even when it's referring to a game that was early in his tenure and he was still working out his squad?

Feels a bit like trying to make things fit a narrative to me, making up reasons to criticise.
It's not realistic and doesn't consider any surrounding factors.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
17,497
32,355
I think it’s tricky to compare our rivalry with Arsenal to Celtic and Rangers’s because Celtic and Rangers rivalry has roots in a political/sectarian rivalry and a war that was raging well into the 1990s. There are also other political and religious components to it.

Whereas the Tottenham/Arsenal rivalry is based mainly on proximity and them moving to our patch. There are other aspects to it but it doesn’t have as many complications to Celtic/Rangers, as I understand it. Not that the rivalry between Tottenham and Arsenal isn’t also very fierce, of course!

As I understand it, the Celtic and Rangers rivalry has generally relaxed over the years. Not necessarily thanks to anything Ange but because of other factors.

I agree though that Ange probably read the room wrong in hindsight because he seems to have lost a bit of good will among supporters. I think also everyone is bit on edge due to the number of games we have lost recently. He’s increased pressure on himself because I think a lot of people will be ready to jump on these comments again if we don’t smash Sheffield United. And it would be a pity to finish the season like that after such a feel good factor at the start of the season.
I just think it’s likely he didn’t/still doesn’t, really get the Celtic Rangers rivalry nor ours. On the one hand he said he doesn’t understand it then when a journo said he’s being to hard on himself as he was manager at Celtic so does understand rivalry Ange says yeah I do understand it. I dunno.

I don’t know if the Celtic rivalry has softened over the years (probably as football in general has become more sanitised) but I’m pretty sure if you put them in the exact same situation as us they’d be thinking the same as most Spurs fans, more so even and that goes for most rivalries.

As I say, I think he’s lucky Villa dropped points because if he had rolled in with the same attitude when there was noting on the line I think a lot more fans would’ve been like wtf is this guy on about.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
55,582
101,715
I just think it’s likely he didn’t/still doesn’t, really get the Celtic Rangers rivalry nor ours. On the one hand he said he doesn’t understand it then when a journo said he’s being to hard on himself as he was manager at Celtic so does understand rivalry Ange says yeah I do understand it. I dunno.

I don’t know if the Celtic rivalry has softened over the years (probably as football in general has become more sanitised) but I’m pretty sure if you put them in the exact same situation as us they’d be thinking the same as most Spurs fans, more so even and that goes for most rivalries.

As I say, I think he’s lucky Villa dropped points because if he had rolled in with the same attitude when there was noting on the line I think a lot more fans would’ve been like wtf is this guy on about.

He's saying he does understand the rivalry. He gets it.

But he doesnt understand why the rivalry should come ahead of your team acrtually winning at the end of the day.

Its a list of importance.

And winning is first for him, ahead of the rivalry.

But he's now acknowleding that it was a tough choice for some, which he gets.

Much better than the critical approach the the other night.

Nothing confusing to me there.
 
Last edited:

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
17,497
32,355
He's saying he does understand the rivalry. He gets it.

But he doesnt understand why the rivalry should come ahead of you're team acrtually winning at the end of the day.
So he doesn’t understand it then. As I say, I can kind of get it when there’s a half chance of CL but he’s coming at it from the professional, purist angle, not a fans. If you understand rivalry then he shouldn’t have been surprised at all earlier this week.
 

McFlash

Without doubt the dumbest & most clueless member.
Oct 19, 2005
13,276
48,084
So he doesn’t understand it then. As I say, I can kind of get it when there’s a half chance of CL but he’s coming at it from the professional, purist angle, not a fans. If you understand rivalry then he shouldn’t have been surprised at all earlier this week.
But to be fair, even on here we were 50/50 split so I think it's safe to say that half of us don't understand the others point of view.

I wanted us to win and I have to say that I was surprised how many of us wanted to lose.
I don't think it should be as divisive as it's become, we're all different and there's not really a right or wrong way to "feel" about football.

It's like when someone says "I don't care about Arsenal". That doesn't mean that they don't hate them, or want to beat them at everything, it's just that them winning anything isn't as important as us winning.
 

jolsnogross

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2005
3,874
5,799
I very much disagree. I mean, how would you know? Firstly, what you think is the best possible way of winning a game might not be how he thinks, but most of all, him being in possession of the facts which you aren't privy to, such as who's carrying a knock, who might need a rest and a whole heap of other considerations suggest what you're saying is uninformed so i'm not sure how you can be so definite.
This getting a little bizarre. It's not controversial to say he changed a winning team at the start of the season for this one game. That was broadly and correctly interpreted as him not prioritizing that cup tie. Whatever his reasons for doing it, he didn't enter that cup game to blow fulham aside because he'd have kept an in form team to do it. Thats not the same as saying he intentionally lost, of course, but he didnt hang his hat on getting through either. He rested players and tried out others....and we were dumped out.

Big shame, IMO, in the context of a new manager and no european footy.
 
Top